Tell me how can adjustments for UHI can end up making prior temperatures cooler?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Arrogant believers of "Anthropogenic Global Warming/Anthropogenic Climate Change" always discount humans as a "natural" part of the Earth's ecosystem. Ground-based temperature anomalies can be off by as much as 1C. The environmental climate clown industry (they call themselves real scientists) know this, but they will show their udder contempt for the fossil fuel industry by continuing to propagate temperature anomalies as "cold and hard facts".
Case and point :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumenta...
" ... Absolute temperatures for the Earth's average surface temperature have been derived, with a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F).[11] However, the correct temperature could easily be anywhere between 13.3 and 14.4°C (56 and 58 °F) and uncertainty increases at smaller (non-global) scales. ... "
" ... a best estimate of roughly 14 °C (57.2 °F) ... "
They use anomalies to show a trend. Nothing "actual" can be derived from a temperature anomaly. That's why many climate clown scientists "adjust" past temperature anomalies. It better suits their billion $$$ climate model "toys".
That's hilarious. Are you joking around or are you really not aware that Roy Spencer was found to be very wrong and had redo do his work? He didn't even know how to adjust for satellite's orbits. So you post an old story that turned out to be very very wrong, and use it to claim that satellites are more accurate. That's why I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or are really that misunderstand that badly.
You'll find that if you post from Steven Goddard you will always be wrong, embarrassingly so.
Satellite measurements are approximations, and they try to measure 8 miles of troposphere. The do not measure surface temperatures. They play a role, which is why NASA continues to contract with Spencer and John Christy to produce the data. That UAH data set is available online. It shows linear rates of warming of .14 degrees per decade globally, and .44 degrees per decade in the North Polar region.
OH, I thought you were asking honest questions.
Obviously not.
Steve Goddard is a prodigious global warming denier.
Get yourself a Ouija board.
The results will be far more accurate.
Temperatures aren't adjusted to make 'em warmer or cooler.
They're adjusted to normalize the data -- to make it so that it represents what would have been recorded if all temperatures were taken at sea level, and at normal pressure.
global warming deniers like to complain about this.
they complain about everything.
over and over, even if they've been shown to be wrong many times over.
to bad you're in that group.
<>
And here's the main problem with science deniers in a nutshell: naivety which leads you to make such moronic statements. Couple that with you following "a science denier with a blog" who is equally misinformed and it is no wonder you know so little about the subject.
For starters, satellites do not directly measure temperatures; they do so by measuring radiances in wavelengths, by using infrared or microwaves. All these techniques require adjustments in the very same way that a pilot needs to adjust his/her altimeter settings. Failure to do so would give erroneous data.
As Baccheus already pointed out, denier favorite Roy Spencer (along with John Christy) responsible for the UAH satellite temperature record) failed to adjust the data which lead them to wrongfully conclude that it was cooling. After the data was adjusted (to account for orbital decay of the satellites), it showed a warming trend of .07C per decade which is entirely consistent with other measurrements.
Your Steve Goddard is either incredibly stupid or he simply knows that his regular readers cannot be bothered to check for themselves. Posting a 1990 newspaper article which refers to Spencer's and Christy's original March 1990 paper without mentioning that it's conclusions were shown to be very wrong, is naive at best, deceitful at worst.
measure them from the different localities of the earth in different places and temperatures according to wind, rainfall, high altitude air currents, and oceanic winds and low elevations as well and compare
satellite data is not temperatures. it is 'tampered' with to simulate temperatures.
It's cooling because the sun is causing glaciers to melt thanks to Al Gore's beach mansion and Obama's forged birth certificate, so who cares about hide-the-decline temperature anamoly-spamamolies?
I would say satellite data myself but mainly because I feel it's been tampered with less. I think most alarmists would say land based because it's continually being adjusted to make curent temps hotter and past temps cooler.
Which do you think is more accurate?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/nasa-1990-no-global-warming-surface-temperature-record-should-be-replaced-by-more-accurate-satellites/
